The applicant wishes to split the lot into two 37½' lots. This would need a variance for east side setback from 10' to 5'. The house is on the property line, and a new house would be within 5' of the existing building. Mr. Schilling, father-in-law and business partner of the applicant, explained the historic renovations he has completed in German Village, Italian Village, Short North, and at 410 North Prospect. The house at 331 Spellman has 7 bedrooms and was for sale for two years and did not sell because of the extensive structural damages. Their plan was to divide the property and build a new house. They want to fill in the street scape. Julio has spoken with the neighbors with a majority of the people in agreement with their plans. They say this property needs to be redone. Mr. Valenzuela said they found serious foundation problems. There is a large piece of land next door and a new home could be built with a shared driveway. He said a lot of yard space would remain at 352 Granger even with the new lot. The neighbors wanted on-site parking, and that will be the case. The overall density would be less than on Summit and College Streets. Ms. Mitchell asked whether they would renovate or demolish the house, and Mr. Valenzuela said they are working with renovations and that is their priority with a new house on the new lot. But they are still evaluating the condition of the house with its bad foundation. Ms. Mitchell asked whether the variance is just for the existing house, and Mr. Strayer said GPC can approve a lot split, and a new building would also be approved by GPC. If it needs a variance, it will come to us before the GPC. Mr. Heim asked why they are bringing us a lot split before working on the house and was told they just wanted to see it. There would be a lot of work, and the rear would have to be partially demolished. The neighbors like what we are doing. Mr. Heim asked about the distance between the other houses, and Mr. Strayer said a majority of the homes are within setbacks, grandfathered in. Mr. Heim asked, then would these two houses be closer than the pattern on the street, and Mr. Strayer said yes on Spellman but Summit and College have more homes. Mr. Ashbaugh asked about access by the Fire Department, and Mr. Valenzuela said the fire code comes into play when you work the site. As long as you don't do any new work on the house or change windows or doors, you are grandfathered. The new garage would go in the rear. Mr. Heim said we try to accommodate where people have a great need for a change. This would require unusual circumstances, and he does not know what is unusual here. Mr. Valenzuela said the condition of the house and the expense of renovating it are unusual circumstances. Another party came in and tried to restore the house but failed and that is an unusual circumstance. Mr. Heim asked how many people would the new building accommodate and was told it has 3 bedrooms. Mr. Jung said a variance needs to be approved before the house is started. Another variance would be applied for, since the applicant will need a 3' side yard setback for the new house. Dan Bellman is not familiar with Urban Renovations but he knows they try to do good work, but none of that is relevant tonight. What is relevant is the general criteria for approving higher density. We are trying to limit growth here. He also has concerns about run-off and drainage. Section 1147.03 is for a situation where everyone in the district gets something but because of the owner's actions, he does not get what everyone else gets. None of 1147.03 applies here. Under E, there will be more children for the schools. They bought the house the way it is, and there is no hardship. He doubts there will be enough off-street parking. Mr. Valenzuela said they are providing a solution for an ongoing problem. The adjacent owners are happy with what he is doing. Left alone, this house might be a hazard for the neighbors. They are experts at what they do. As far as the school district is concerned, they are offering a solution-taking a single family with 7 bedrooms for 5 children and paying tax and creating two properties with 2-3 children and paying taxes.

MR. DEAN MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING FURTHER DISCUSSION. MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

After the next application, the discussion continued.MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. JUNG SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dean reminded the group that we are only looking at the 5' variance application. We have to decide whether we would consider a 5' setback. Mr. Heim did not think there should be anything else on the property since it is too narrow, and he does not like increasing the density. He noted that GPC cannot move until a variance is granted. Mr. Ashbaugh said we can only approve 5' but they really want 3'. He noted that if we approve the 5', then they have everything else. They should be asking for 3' because the lot is not split.Mr. Strayer said the other lot will have 10' setbacks until he comes back to ask for anything else. He added that we could approve 5' on the setback on the proposed lot line on the condition that if GPC does not approve, then the variance is vacated. Mr. Dean said they want to see how close they can build. Mr. Strayer had assumed the neighbors would all be up in arms about this, but they are not. He does not have a problem with splitting the lot, but 37½' is a very small lot. We should not create new lots so narrow. With 10' on each side you have only 17' for the house. Mr. Jung noted that in order to renovate, they must sell the future house.

A.That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. False. No special conditions exist on the land or structure. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. False. It would not deprive applicants of rights that others have.C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. False. They do result from actions of the applicant.D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. False. It would grant undue privilege.E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the proposed variance. True. The variance will not adversely affect health, safety or general welfare of any persons.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPLICATION. MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julie Smith, 332 W. Elm Street - Side Setback

The applicant wishes a variance from 10' to 7' to construct a new 8'x8' shed. Ms. Smith said they want it in that spot because there is a slight slope and that is the only place where the lot is level. There is a brick patio near the house, a picket fence, a flower garden, and trees. It will not be visible to the neighbors. They don't have a garage or carport and need a storage shed for tools. The shed will look like a Victorian toy house. Mr. Heim asked whether it is moveable and was told Yes Mr. Ashbaugh asked why can't they move it over next to the patio, and Ms. Smith said because there is a cellar door there and because they like to use the patio.. There is a roof over the patio. Mr. Dean asked whether there were other sheds in the AROD and was told, Yes, within the setback.

A.That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. True, due to the location of the existing patio and the landscaping in place, they had no choice but to put it in that location.. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. True, other properties in Granville or that area have small sheds and commonly enjoy this type of structure on their properties.C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. True. They do not result from actions of the applicant.D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. True, approval would not grant undue privilege.E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the proposed variance. True. The variance will not adversely affect health, safety or general welfare.

MR. ASHBAUGH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE APPLICATION. MR. DEAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 10: On Page 3, change MR. JUMP to MR. JUNG in the motion.

MS. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10 AS AMENDED. MR. JUNG SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: January 12 (Mr. Dean will be absent) and February 9Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen Hullinger